Anarchist’s Unite!

Once upon a time, when I was in the midst of creating the Life, Liberty and Property community, I considered calling it Anarchists Unite! as a joke. Other folks convinced me that I would turn people off with that name for the community, people who wouldn’t get the joke, so I didn’t use that name. But, I’ve always wanted to use it, somehow, within the community.

Without further ado, then, Jon Henke of QandO is trying to get a group of technically skilled volunteers together to build a web portal and forum to bring libertarian minded folk together. If you’re interested, drop by QandO and let Jon know how you can help.

Security executive, work for Core Security, veteran, kids, dogs, cat, chickens, mortgage, bills. I like #liberty #InfoSec #scotch, #wine, #cigars, #travel, #baseball
  • tkc

    It would have been cute to use Anarchists Unite but it probably would not have worked. What me and you think anarchy is and what a good portion of the public thinks anarchy is are probably two vastly different things.
    When thinking of what is currently passing as Anarchists I usually picture black clad thugs showing up at globalization summits and torching the local Starbucks. This is not so much Anarchy as it is anti-globalization and anti-capitalism being played to the tune of various punk rock bands. But this is not what anarchy is about.

    It reminds of the difference between classical liberals and todays self described ‘progressive’ liberals. They are practically at odds with each other. It reminds me of this passage from Capitalism and Freedom
    “It is extremely convenient to have a label for the political and economic viewpoint elaborated in this book. The rightful and proper label is liberalism. Unfortunately, “As a supreme, if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label”*, so that liberalism has, in the United States, come to have a very different meaning than it did in the nineteenth century or does today over much of the Continent of Europe.
    As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the intellectual movement that went under the name of liberalism emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal and the individual as the ultimate entity in the society. It supported laisez faire at home as a means of reducing the role of the state in economic affairs and thereby enlarging the role of the individual; it supported free trade abroad as a means of linking the nations of the world together peacefully and democratically. In political matters, it supported the development of representative government and of parliamentary institutions, reduction in the arbitrary power of the state, and protection of the civil freedoms of individuals.
    Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which the classical liberalism fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!
    The change in the meaning attached to the term liberalism is more striking in economic matters than in political. The twentieth century liberal, like the nineteenth century liberal, favors the parliamentary institutions, representative government, civil rights, and so on. Yet even in political matters, there is a notable difference. Jealous of liberty, and hence fearful of centralized power, whether in governmental or private hands, the nineteenth century liberal favored political decentralization. Committed to action and confident of the beneficence of power so long as it is in the hands of a government ostensibly controlled by the electorate, the twentieth century liberal favors centralized government. He will resolve any doubt about where power should be located in favor of the state instead of the city, of the federal government instead of the state, and of a world organization instead of a national government.
    Because of the corruption of the term liberalism, the views that formerly went under that name are now often labeled conservatism. But this is not a satisfactory alternative. The nineteenth century liberal was a radical, both in the etymological sense of going to the root of the matter, and in the political sense of favoring major changes in social institutions. So too must be he modern heir. We do not wish to conserve the state interventions that have interfered so greatly with our freedom, thought, of course, we do with to conserve those that have promoted it. Moreover, in practice, the term conservatism has come cover so wide a range of views, and views so incompatible with one another, that we shall no doubt see the growth of hyphenated designations, such as libertarian-conservative and aristocratic-conservative.
    Partly because of my reluctance to surrender the term to proponents of measures that would destroy liberty, partly because I cannot find a better alternative, I shall resolve these difficulties by using the word liberalism in its original sense – as the doctrines pertaining to a free man.”

    Sadly we find ourselves in this situation all too often. One where good sounding words are used as names for statist philosophies for the sake of popular appeal. It is nothing more than a bastardization of language.